ST-v-SW.net: Rise calcs

[Kazeite]

Define the time interval of "as soon as it exits"

Really, what part of "as soon as it exits" you don't understand? :)

Oh you thought that merely listing the name of an episode somehow proves that photon torpedoes are fired forward. Awww that's so cute.

I know :) Like I said, if there's torpedo fired in an episode, it will invariably initially head forward. Now, I've listed my evidence, now's your turn.

Say one second? Says who?

Says me. Weren't you responding to my post? Maybe you thought I run my posts through Darkstars desk or something? :)

Why can't it be tenth of a second hmmm?

Because canon evidence says so. Really, Kane, it is your claim that it can turn immediately after bein' launched. You could at the very least try to back it up with, you know, the evidence. C'mon, show us at least one instance of Starfleet torpedo veering in any direction immediately after the launch? Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

Ever since my first post I stated that torpedo uses it's own guidance system to veer to the camera.

Yes, but now you try to claim that it doesn't really contradict all that "mantaining parallel linear trajectory" stuff.

When asked what "fired forward" means you mumble something about "torpedo going straight for one second" without providing a shred of evidence.

Except, you know, those Star Trek episodes everyone talk about :D Mumble on, Kane :)

Hi hi hi. This is so much fun.

I can see that. You've missed my point so much you don't even know where it was, what it was, and where it went :D

Don't you get it? Your torpedo had to increase its glow size from 0 to 2 meters. Physically. The evidence of such grow is right there on screenshots. The only difference in this particular regard is I claim my torpedo has increased its glow size from 0 to 9 meters.

But then, you claim that contrary to observed trends your torpedo turned left and downwards, and then decelerated. I claim no such things, therefore, my theory is simpler.

To put it another way:

My theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkaz1,Vkaz2,....Vkazn] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,....dtn]
2)That torpedoes glow radius physically grows over time until it reaches diameter of 9m and mercifully stays that way.

Your theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkane1,Vkane2,....Vkanen] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,.....dtn]
2)That torpedoes glow radius physically grows over time until it reaches diameter of 2m and then stays that way.

(and of course, there's this thing about veering to the left, etc, etc, your "theory" fails to mention :) )

Do you understand it now? (I dare you to say no :) )

Kazeite, thanks for the caps. As I can observe them, I see no hull illumination, safe in the first frame.

Then why does forward part of the hull appear brighter in last two frames?

[Kane Starkiller]

Summary of the debate so far:

1. Kazeite failed to provide any evidence that Starfleet always fires it's torpedoes "straight forward". That link to episode titles do not constitute evidence is apparently lost on him.

2. When asked to elaborate on what "fired forward" means he answers that it means that torpedoes cannot change course for at least a second for which he provides no evidence thus accidentally conceding the entire argument.

3. After failing to produce any evidence to back up his theory he again tries to shift the burden of proof and demands that I prove that torpedoes can turn "immediately" after launch. He hopes no one will notice that I never said "immediately" but merely asked him to justify his claim that they can't do it before a second passes, a number he picked from thin air, seeing as how even today we have computers that can perform millions of operations per second.

4. In a latest desperate attempt he tries to claim that my theory has the torpedo glowing from 0 to 2 meters. Naturally anyone who ever saw Star Trek knows that when stored photon torpedoes DO NOT GLOW so that they go from zero glow to 2 meter glow is an OBSERVED FACT and not my theory.

5. Kazeite doesn't grasp basic mathematical definitions such as vectors, speed and acceleration as he again accuses me of adding the "thing about veering to the left, etc, etc" even though that is speed vector and it is already listed as my premise. He naturally doesn't elaborate on his "etc etc" hoping that everyone will just assume there is more when there is not.

6. Since all of his efforts to challenge my points failed I reiterate our two theories:

"Your theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkaz1,Vkaz2,....Vkazn] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,....dtn]
2)That torpedoes glow radius physically grows over time

My theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkane1,Vkane2,....Vkanen] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,.....dtn]

Neither YOU OR ME can prove our assumed list of speed vectors or the duration of time intervals but since your theory adds an additional UNNECESSARY term to the premise then it is obviously a weaker theory under Occam's Razor."

[Kazeite]

Summary of the debate so far:

Oh, lookie - the "summary" tactic. So, you actually couldn't form coherent anwers to my arguments? Oh well, your concession is graciously accepted, Kane. Yet again :)

And I see you still don't understand how you've failed :D

So, here's the real summary, sunshine:

1. I've provided evidence showing that photon torpedoes (and quantum too, for that matter) fly straight ahead after firing. Like I said, I could provide hundreds more, but the basic premise already has been estabilished. In response Kane could only whine that I haven't provided every single picture of torpedoes being fired straight ahead, without bothering to prove his counterclaim.

2. Incidentally, the very same examples I've provided prove that fired torpedoes don't change course "for at least a second", thus fulfilling Kane's demand.

3. Kane's hypothesis states that torpedo was fired at an angle, however, he has failed to produce any evidence to back that up. What is more, he actually conceded such evidence doesn't exist. In addition, he hopes no one will notice that picture does show torpedo turning "immediately" after launch :) By denying that it does, he thus shoots himself in the foot and spends rest of the post jumping comically on one leg.

4. Somehow, Kane claims that torpedo glow growing from 0m (no glow) to 9m is sufficient to warrant a separate point, but torpedo glow growing from 0m (no glow) to 2m is not.

Kane, sunshine, both hypothesis start with torpedoes having no glow. Don't you realise that? Mine and your torpedoes both have no glow when stored. Them going from zero glow to 2 meter glow is an observed fact. So is going from zero glow to 7 meter glow. So is going from zero glow to X meter glow from any other episode which show different glow size.

5. Kane seems to believe that by referring to his wild torpedo moves as generic vector figures he can disguise the fact that his torpedo, unlike mine, has more changes of the values of such vectors than mine, thus making his hypothesis more complex.

6. Since all of his efforts to challenge my points failed I reiterate our two hypothesis:

My theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkaz1,Vkaz2,....Vkazn] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,....dtn]
2)That torpedoes glow radius physically grows over time, starting with no glow, until it reaches diameter of 9m and mercifully stays that way.

Your theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkane1,Vkane2,....Vkanen] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,.....dtn]
2)That torpedoes glow radius physically grows over time, starting with no glow, until it reaches diameter of 2m and then stays that way.

I've provided examples of torpedoes being fired straight ahead. You haven't provided counter-examples.

Your speed vectors change over time. Mine don't.

Since your theory adds additional UNNECESSARY terms to the premise then it is obviously a weaker theory under Occam's Razor.

Kane, pal, I know you know I'm right, and I know your pride won't allow you to admit that. That's ok, I don't mind. Relax, I understand y00 ;)

[Mr. Oragahn]

Kazeite, thanks for the caps. As I can observe them, I see no hull illumination, safe in the first frame.

Then why does forward part of the hull appear brighter in last two frames?

The truth is that it does not. You're just seeing the hull through the glow.
It has nothing to do with Hope & Fear, where we clearly saw that the hull was lit asymetrically, precisely because of the torpedo radiating light.
The second, and accesorily third frame, largely show that there's a completely lack of hull illumination.

So again, I see you and Kane having a long and heated discussion, which is surprising beause I'd have expected our one unique special mod to intervene.
Ultimately, it strikes me as utterly pointless, babble about generalizations in a way or another, proving negatives and debunking only partial positives and whatelse.

Considering that the frames completely disprove the idea that the torp was flying close to the ship - assuming the CGI had luminous torps are light sources in the scene, which is the case since frame 1 shows an asymetrical lighting - the only thing left to do is to gauge the size of a torp glow from other well known and documented cases.

Again, as I said over and over, it's something between the high end of Hope & Fear, and the low end of Alliances.

[Kazeite]

The truth is that it does not. You're just seeing the hull through the glow.

But if that's true, in the second frame we should be seeing hull being illuminated by the torpedo, which by this point is still close to the hull, no matter the hypothesis. Don't you agree?

And, like I said, I honestly don't recall any scene where torpedo was fired other than straight ahead. Maybe you do, but the way I see it that torpedo couldn't fly at an angle, because torpedoes simply don't behave that way after being fired.

[Kane Starkiller]

So, here's the real summary, sunshine:

Oh you're going to make your own summary!
What monkey sees monkey does eh Kazeite? :)

1. I've provided evidence showing that photon torpedoes (and quantum too, for that matter) fly straight ahead after firing. Like I said, I could provide hundreds more, but the basic premise already has been estabilished. In response Kane could only whine that I haven't provided every single picture of torpedoes being fired straight ahead, without bothering to prove his counterclaim.

I like how you quietly dropped the quantifier ALWAYS. But lest you forget ALWAYS is what you need to prove. So yes you do need to provide EVERY SINGLE PICTURE of every single time photon torpedo was fired. Of course that is impossible since many torpedoes were fired off screen. But then again that's what you get when you base your theory on such bold claims.

2. Incidentally, the very same examples I've provided prove that fired torpedoes don't change course "for at least a second", thus fulfilling Kane's demand.

Again you are pretending a single picture proves that torpedoes cannot change course in less than a second. That is not evidence no matter how much you pretend it is.

3. Kane's hypothesis states that torpedo was fired at an angle, however, he has failed to produce any evidence to back that up. What is more, he actually conceded such evidence doesn't exist. In addition, he hopes no one will notice that picture does show torpedo turning "immediately" after launch :) By denying that it does, he thus shoots himself in the foot and spends rest of the post jumping comically on one leg.

Your desperation sees through again as you have now resorted to outright lying. I never claimed that torpedo is initially fired at an angle merely that it veered towards the camera after it was fired. You can keep lying about it as much as you want and I will be here to correct you and expose your lies. :)
And I forgot to mention how you are again trying to pass of your home made pictures as canon screenshots of torpedo fire.

4. Somehow, Kane claims that torpedo glow growing from 0m (no glow) to 9m is sufficient to warrant a separate point, but torpedo glow growing from 0m (no glow) to 2m is not.

Kane, sunshine, both hypothesis start with torpedoes having no glow. Don't you realise that? Mine and your torpedoes both have no glow when stored. Them going from zero glow to 2 meter glow is an observed fact. So is going from zero glow to 7 meter glow. So is going from zero glow to X meter glow from any other episode which show different glow size.

And now desperation really kicks in as you still claim that my theory has anything to do with difference between unarmed and armed torpedo.
Oh by the way you do realize that glow will be invisible because it is obscured by the launch tube? And since the video is recorded at 24 frames per second it won't be able to capture the torpedo's gradual exit from the tube so it will seem as the torpedo just "appeared" in front of the tube? This is pretty basic stuff here. Damn that kindergarten lady. :)

5. Kane seems to believe that by referring to his wild torpedo moves as generic vector figures he can disguise the fact that his torpedo, unlike mine, has more changes of the values of such vectors than mine, thus making his hypothesis more complex.

Ah more qualitative terms. There is nothing "wild". The torpedo simply veers to the camera. In any case it is still the same mathematical term as your premise. Therefore we can only talk about whose speed vectors are less complex when you rid your theory of additional mathematical terms like glow radius growth.

My theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkaz1,Vkaz2,....Vkazn] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,....dtn]
2)That torpedoes glow radius physically grows over time, starting with no glow, until it reaches diameter of 9m and mercifully stays that way.

Your theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkane1,Vkane2,....Vkanen] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,.....dtn]
2)That torpedoes glow radius physically grows over time, starting with no glow, until it reaches diameter of 2m and then stays that way.

I've provided examples of torpedoes being fired straight ahead. You haven't provided counter-examples.

Your speed vectors change over time. Mine don't.

The premise you list as 2) under my theory is made up as I demonstrated above and only a result of your desperation. Your speed vectors change since the torpedo accelerates even under your theory. Therefore speed is not constant. In any case since you add growth it's a moot point.

Since your theory adds additional UNNECESSARY terms to the premise then it is obviously a weaker theory under Occam's Razor.

As I asked you many times and you evaded prove that they are unnecessary.

Kane, pal, I know you know I'm right, and I know your pride won't allow you to admit that. That's ok, I don't mind. Relax, I understand y00 ;)

That's it Kazeite keep projecting :)

[Kazeite]

Oh you're going to make your own summary!

Well either this whole summary idea was a monumentally stupid idea, in which case you're a fool, or it was a briliant tactical move, which makes me master stragetist. Take your pick :)

I like how you quietly dropped the quantifier ALWAYS.

Um, no, not really. Like I said, the basic premise has been estabilished. Unlike yours.

So yes you do need to provide EVERY SINGLE PICTURE of every single time photon torpedo was fired. Of course that is impossible since many torpedoes were fired off screen.

Now that's just silly, Kane. I could very well argue that all Jedi turn yellow when they're off screen :)

Again you are pretending a single picture proves that torpedoes cannot change course in less than a second.

Strawman.

I never claimed that torpedo is initially fired at an angle merely that it veered towards the camera after it was fired.

Now that's even sillier. Do you think that torpedoes are fired by shoving them into space? No, they are fired by the launch tubes, don't they?

And now desperation really kicks in as you still claim that my theory has anything to do with difference between unarmed and armed torpedo.

Does the torpedo from your hypothesis has a visible glow? Why yes it does.

Are you denying that your torpedo at one point was unarmed and not glowing, and then, after being launched developed a visible glow?

Glow-wise, the only difference between my and your torpedo is that mine grew slower and the resulting glow is bigger. That is pretty basic stuff here :)

Ah more qualitative terms. There is nothing "wild". The torpedo simply veers to the camera.

And then it hits the brakes. Seems pretty wild to me. In any case, the course and speed changes are still more pronounced, compared to my torpedo. And that makes your hypothesis more complex.

The premise you list as 2) under my theory is made up as I demonstrated above and only a result of your desperation.

Does your torpedo has a glow? Why yes it does. Did it always had this glow? No, it didn't. The very same premise applies to my torpedo as well. So why do you refuse to put 2) into your hypothesis?

Your torpedo glow also grows, from nothing to 2m. Why do you refuse to admit that?

As I asked you many times and you evaded prove that they are unnecessary.

Sigh... Is your memory that bad, Kane? In case you don't realise that, torpedo flying straight ahead and steadily accelerating is simpler explanation than torpedo veering to the left (new, previously unobserved mechanism) and hitting the brakes (new, previously unobserved behaviour). We do know that torpedoes at the very least often fly straight forward when fired (once (like me) could even argue they always fly straight forward). We also know their glow can be as big as 10m. And that makes your assumptions unecessary, since there's other, canon explanation.

That's it Kazeite keep projecting

Unlike you, I have admitted my mistake in this very thread, Kane. You should really try harder to understand written word.

[Mr. Oragahn]

The truth is that it does not. You're just seeing the hull through the glow.

But if that's true, in the second frame we should be seeing hull being illuminated by the torpedo, which by this point is still close to the hull, no matter the hypothesis. Don't you agree?

There's no particular hull illumination in the second frame.

So let's just try to cap the dimension figures.

First, is it as big or smaller than in Hope & Fear?

Or is it more like in Alliances?

I'll repeat myself, because I'm afraid my post has drowned in a sea of bickering.

The torp in H&F looked big, but when the glow size is compared against the windows of the enemy ship, we see that the glow is nothing more than as large as 3 windows heights at best.

If the window is like two meters high, that leave a glow at 6 meters wide.
It appears, then, that the more distant you are to a torp, the bigger the glow seems to appear.

Which is a crucial point here, because it's important when mesuring the size of the glow when the a torpedoe is far way, about to his a distant and large asteroid.

As for Alliances, vivftp tried a scaling (at sb.com), and his latest calcs show that with torps less than 6 meters wide, we can already expect yields in the 372.5 ~ 543.6 MT:

"TORPEDO 1
Low end - 71.7 megatons
High end - 543.6 megatons

TORPEDO 2
Low end - 118 megatons
High end - 372.5 megatons"

Now, there's a few remarks to do about vivftp's calcs.

The scalings he did on the asteroid regarding the torp's glow:



I zoomed on the picture, and he says that the glow is 3 pixels wide. He's not mesuring the core, but the whole glow.
Various shots from sequences where the Voyager fired torpedoes show that the streaks add a certain amount of width to the overall size.
So we'll have to get high quality DVD shots of the sequence to precisely know how wide the glow core was.

Anyway, we're dealing with a surface explosion, and the asteroid can likely be between 300 and 400 meters long.
At that point, it would be very likely that the torpedo would be filled with 11~13 kg of antimatter.

How many of these torps the Voyager had is another question though.

And, like I said, I honestly don't recall any scene where torpedo was fired other than straight ahead. Maybe you do, but the way I see it that torpedo couldn't fly at an angle, because torpedoes simply don't behave that way after being fired.

Well apparently Kane has cited ST6 as a solid proof that torps can quickly manouver when out of the tube.

Considering the abilities of torps, saying it can't happen because we have not seen it is dubious, especially when there seems to be evidence it can happen, but very very rarely.
Nevermind, I suppose that Rise will have to be that very rare case as well.

[Kazeite]

There's no particular hull illumination in the second frame.

So we can't really rule out that torpedo isn't close to the hull, can we?

Vivftp scaling looks interesting, and what is amazing he wasn't devoured alive on sb.com for daring to suggest that his figures are that high ;)

His figures however basically agree with Darkstars figures :)

Well apparently Kane has cited ST6 as a solid proof that torps can quickly manouver when out of the tube.

Which is not what I asked for. The torpedo, by itself, can maneuver, that much is true - ST6 is an example of that. What I asked for is an example of torpedo flying at an angle immediately after being launched. Even in ST6 we could see that torpedo was first fired straight forward and started maneuvering only after several seconds.

Considering the abilities of torps, saying it can't happen because we have not seen it is dubious, especially when there seems to be evidence it can happen, but very very rarely.

But there's no evidence it can happen, and the way torpedo launchers are described makes it all but impossible.

[2046]

I'm pretty sure "Code of Honor"[TNG1] fits that bill with the 'display blast' torpedo shots.

[Mr. Oragahn]

There's no particular hull illumination in the second frame.

So we can't really rule out that torpedo isn't close to the hull, can we?

Actually, we can pretty much rule it out, precisely because there's nitch illumination to see on the hull in the frames where it would be most expected.

Vivftp scaling looks interesting, and what is amazing he wasn't devoured alive on sb.com for daring to suggest that his figures are that high ;)

I think they don't care, as long as he doesn't pretend gigatons levels with the ability to deal the blast within 0.00001 seconds. ;)

His figures however basically agree with Darkstars figures :)

Yep, however the Alliance scaling is hard to achieve, and I'd actually like to see caps of Rise in high quality with no editing on them, obscuring pixels.

Well apparently Kane has cited ST6 as a solid proof that torps can quickly manouver when out of the tube.

Which is not what I asked for. The torpedo, by itself, can maneuver, that much is true - ST6 is an example of that. What I asked for is an example of torpedo flying at an angle immediately after being launched. Even in ST6 we could see that torpedo was first fired straight forward and started maneuvering only after several seconds.

Mmh, I see. Not the same deal.
But Robert has found an example, apparently.

[vivftp]

As for Alliances, vivftp tried a scaling (at sb.com), and his latest calcs show that with torps less than 6 meters wide, we can already expect yields in the 372.5 ~ 543.6 MT:

"TORPEDO 1
Low end - 71.7 megatons
High end - 543.6 megatons

TORPEDO 2
Low end - 118 megatons
High end - 372.5 megatons"

Now, there's a few remarks to do about vivftp's calcs.

The scalings he did on the asteroid regarding the torp's glow:



I zoomed on the picture, and he says that the glow is 3 pixels wide. He's not mesuring the core, but the whole glow.
Various shots from sequences where the Voyager fired torpedoes show that the streaks add a certain amount of width to the overall size.
So we'll have to get high quality DVD shots of the sequence to precisely know how wide the glow core was.

Howdy there. I felt compelled to register so that I could clarify since my work is being used here. Firstly I'd like to point out that the figures posted above were later revised in the same thread after a flaw in the scaling was discovered. The revised figures are as follows:

TORPEDO 1:
Low end - 29.9 megatons
High end - 227.4 megatons

TORPEDO 2:
Low end - 49.4 megatons
High end - 155 megatons


They can be found in this post:

http://forum.spacebattles.com/showpost. ... stcount=46


I'll be redoing the calcs with a higher quality DVD screenshot hopefully this weekend and it'll be posted in the SB thread.


Also, note with the Hope and Fear torpedo, there's no guarantee those are the same class torpedo as the Rise and Alliances torpedo. Evidence was posted in the SB thread that the Rise and Alliances torpedos are the same class 6 ones, and if you follow the information posted there you'll note that the torpedo yield increased by a factor of 4 between VOY's Scorpion and VOY's Living Witness, which occured before Hope and Fear. We know from the next seasons Bliss that Voyager then had class 9 torpedos on its weapons manifest. So while not concrete evidence, there is enough to suggest that the Rise and Hope and Fear torpedos may not be the same. And of course we know that different torpedos from different series and timeframes have different glow appearances and sizes, so there exists the high chance that the torpedo glow for the Hope and Fear torps may indeed be different.

That's why I chose Alliances to scale against because at least there we can say they are the same torpedo class and should have the same glow effect.

[Kazeite]

Actually, we can pretty much rule it out, precisely because there's nitch illumination to see on the hull in the frames where it would be most expected.

But there's no illumination at all. Even when we do know that torpedo is close to hull.

Mmh, I see. Not the same deal.
But Robert has found an example, apparently.

Yup. Kinda ironic, isn't it? :)

Of course, I could pull a kaneism and claim that this is different ship and (presumably) different type of torpedo, so, nyah, but being a honest debater I must concede that firing trek torpedoes at an angle is possible.

But my hypothesis is still simpler :) I mean, why would they position Voyager in such awkward position which forces that poor torpedo to turn left and hit the brakes. What's so complicated in parking Voyager in front of the asteroid?

And, hello there, vivftp. Nice scaling job :)

[Mr. Oragahn]

Howdy there. I felt compelled to register so that I could clarify since my work is being used here. Firstly I'd like to point out that the figures posted above were later revised in the same thread after a flaw in the scaling was discovered. The revised figures are as follows:

TORPEDO 1:
Low end - 29.9 megatons
High end - 227.4 megatons

TORPEDO 2:
Low end - 49.4 megatons
High end - 155 megatons


They can be found in this post:

http://forum.spacebattles.com/showpost. ... stcount=46


I'll be redoing the calcs with a higher quality DVD screenshot hopefully this weekend and it'll be posted in the SB thread.


Also, note with the Hope and Fear torpedo, there's no guarantee those are the same class torpedo as the Rise and Alliances torpedo. Evidence was posted in the SB thread that the Rise and Alliances torpedos are the same class 6 ones, and if you follow the information posted there you'll note that the torpedo yield increased by a factor of 4 between VOY's Scorpion and VOY's Living Witness, which occured before Hope and Fear. We know from the next seasons Bliss that Voyager then had class 9 torpedos on its weapons manifest. So while not concrete evidence, there is enough to suggest that the Rise and Hope and Fear torpedos may not be the same. And of course we know that different torpedos from different series and timeframes have different glow appearances and sizes, so there exists the high chance that the torpedo glow for the Hope and Fear torps may indeed be different.

That's why I chose Alliances to scale against because at least there we can say they are the same torpedo class and should have the same glow effect.

Hi!

I ddin't notice the update. Exsqueeze me.

That said, I posted a couple of comments in another thread earlier on, here, where I used your image to get the perspective.



Like I said, it's not top accurate, but it's still good enough to understand where the wall's inner edges start.

There seems to be a problem with the Alliances scaling, cause the glow core really seems to be bigger, even for the low end, than 1.91 m.

I mean, considering that the glow cores are spherical no matter where you're looking at them from, it means that the core must encompass the whole torp in a sphere, and thus will at the very least be as wide, in diameter, as the torp is long.

I don't know how big the torps Voyager uses are, but in TNG, there was that torp used as a coffin to smugle that Klingon woman, and there was still room above her head. I don't know how tall she was supposed to be, but she appeared tall anyway. Actually, scaling that modified torp shouldn't be too hard, as it was beamed onboard, so you just need a well known character standing at the same place, even from another episode, to do the job.

If both torps are of the same dimensions, this could be useful to get an absolute low end.
Besides, I'm sure the shield would extend a bit beyond the torp's extremeties.

It's just that I find those less than 2 meters figures too low.
Anyway, good job.

Actually, we can pretty much rule it out, precisely because there's nitch illumination to see on the hull in the frames where it would be most expected.

But there's no illumination at all. Even when we do know that torpedo is close to hull.

In frame 1, there is an illumination. It's faint, but it's there, on the left of the torpedo, slightly illuminating a portion of the hull that is not illuminated in the following frames, and beyond the aura of the glow.

Of course, I could pull a kaneism and claim that this is different ship and (presumably) different type of torpedo, so, nyah, but being a honest debater I must concede that firing trek torpedoes at an angle is possible.

It's also an advantage, really.

I just youtubed (you didn't know that verb, huh?), and saw that First Contact shows ships immediately firing at a strong angle.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9MuIHRMnJvI

But my hypothesis is still simpler :) I mean, why would they position Voyager in such awkward position which forces that poor torpedo to turn left and hit the brakes. What's so complicated in parking Voyager in front of the asteroid?

It's even worse, since as I understand it, they were trying to intercept it, so they were likely facing it, or chasing it.

But anyway, looks like it's too much trouble for what it's worth, so I'll once more rely on other pieces of evidence. Thanks to vivftp's higher knowledge at Trek than my absolutely ridicule one, his point looks convincing enough, and for the moment, relying on Alliances is, at least, a straighter way to know how big a glow can be, at least.

[vivftp]

Hi!

I ddin't notice the update. Exsqueeze me.

That said, I posted a couple of comments in another thread earlier on, here, where I used your image to get the perspective.



Like I said, it's not top accurate, but it's still good enough to understand where the wall's inner edges start.

Howdy. To note, the floor tiles in that picture are rectangular, not square. I was also hoping they'd be square to work out the distance from Neelix to the wall but they aren't.

There seems to be a problem with the Alliances scaling, cause the glow core really seems to be bigger, even for the low end, than 1.91 m.

I mean, considering that the glow cores are spherical no matter where you're looking at them from, it means that the core must encompass the whole torp in a sphere, and thus will at the very least be as wide, in diameter, as the torp is long.

I don't know how big the torps Voyager uses are, but in TNG, there was that torp used as a coffin to smugle that Klingon woman, and there was still room above her head. I don't know how tall she was supposed to be, but she appeared tall anyway. Actually, scaling that modified torp shouldn't be too hard, as it was beamed onboard, so you just need a well known character standing at the same place, even from another episode, to do the job.

Yep, that would be the absolute minimum for the torpedo glow size. All torpedo casings appear to be the same size from their appearance. I haven't done any scalings for those, but I'll take a look to see if there's anything when I get to the analysis on the weekend.

Also, K'Ehleyr was travelling aboard a class 8 probe, not a photon torpedo casing.

It's just that I find those less than 2 meters figures too low.

We'll have to wait and see if there are ways to scale a photon torpedo, but just going by memory it doesn't seem an unreasonable figure.